Kleon_I XYZ Contagion wrote:Aren't these concepts made real . . . in the American constitution?

Except, notably, for women, native American Indians, and unfree blacks. But, on the other hand, the tendency or dynamic was indeed somewhat already present in that document.

(great, very instructive reply, thanks much - I read the piece 1-1/2 times and your reply 2x!)

Yeah, that took a Civil War and a few other course corrections along the way to fix some of the “issues” in the original Constitution.

Not until the 1960s, despite the post-Civil War amendments and Reconstruction, was formal, legal discrimination seriously addressed. That's a century after the Civil War. For decades, the Republicans have been IMO trying to roll much of the 1960s progress back. Yes, I am saying that the Republican party has a white supremacist thrust and adding that one reason neo-Nazi and new Confederate groups don't do better in the US is that they already have a party working for the cause - and more and more so and increasingly openly.

You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

Perhaps by posting her personal information and encouraging his little followers to contact her this crossed the line. Based upon who posts there and how they do it, it’s not exactly secret how the little trolls would react.

“Today I saw one of those places, saw it in all of its horror, all its filth, all its death.”Soldier entering the Ohrdruf Concentration Camp.

My take: this was organized, intentional harassment and does not fall under speech protection. I actually don’t filing it a close call. The campaign was not meant as participation in the public discourse but as a means of punishment of an individual. Throw the book at them.

You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

Statistical Mechanic wrote:My take: this was organized, intentional harassment and does not fall under speech protection. I actually don’t filing it a close call. The campaign was not meant as participation in the public discourse but as a means of punishment of an individual. Throw the book at them.

At the very least the history of Andrew Anglin and his troll army work against him.

He did the same after the election, sending his trolls to Twitter to find and harass Clinton supporters. The stated intent was to harass them into committing suicide. He also called for them to harass Muslim women:

A detail on the Whitefish case reported in WaPo: Montana's state supreme court has held in the past “that free speech does not include the right to cause substantial emotional distress by harassment or intimidation.” A state supreme court ruling would not supersede the US Supreme Court, which has ruled (e.g., the Westboro church decision in 2011 being the most recent such ruling I know of) that hateful speech is protected, if the case made it that far, but Gersh's suit against Anglin et al alleging violations of the Montana Anti-Intimidation Act is in a lower court, US District Court in Montana.

You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

Kleon_I XYZ Contagion wrote:Aren't these concepts made real . . . in the American constitution?

Except, notably, for women, native American Indians, and unfree blacks. But, on the other hand, the tendency or dynamic was indeed somewhat already present in that document.

(great, very instructive reply, thanks much - I read the piece 1-1/2 times and your reply 2x!)

Well, i do suspect that some people were also excluded from all those democratic activities in Antic Athens as well...Even this democracy was not set up in one day, it took many crisis and the necessary social evolution. I am speaking from memory and Kleon is more than welcomed to correct the little i know / remember.

PS: Great post, Kleon, it is a privilege for us to have you on this forum.Made me understood the french expression " l'idiot du village" - wrongly understood today as the fact that every village had its cretin, while the real sense was that every village had its grumpy character who isolated himself from the community...

So yes, Democracy was not build in one day, like as a result of some philosophers meeting. There were at least two centuries between Dracon and Pericles. Just like ours today, social structures were taken into consideration as long as they existed, the first democracy was more or less reserved (or at least the highest charges) to the former Aristocrats, a class that would be open progressively to new comers, but a ratio Wealth/influence was still very present...The more you paid taxes the more you voice counted...Anyway, what i mean here is that it was a democracy for its citizens, the citizenship was restricted...There were still Slaves who had no right at all...Women were also excluded from any political activities, like foreigners living in the city. For most foreigners, access to citizenship was out of question, except for foreign "Greeks".

Just to say, it was not "panacea" neither.

And of course, the system will bit by bit go bankrupt, politically and morally, democrats becoming demagogues...

The question was whether the Constitution (and English bill of rights) didn't make "real" a democracy in which "everyone is a part of the debate ('isegoria'), and when he can speak about everything ('parrhesia')." The answer is no. The Constitution has a logic - but that logic was not played out in the Constitution, which notably distinguished between free and enslaved.

Thinking about elections and representation: Southern states wanted people held in slavery to be considered property - except for purposes of representation, and a compromise was struck on this. Nor did the Constitution define who could vote but left that up to states, which generally permitted during the early republic only free white male property owners to vote. At some points in the early republic immigrants were not considered white and not extended citizenship rights. American Indians didn't gain citizenship until the 1920s (I think!). IIRC a few states did allow freed blacks to vote in the early years of the republic and gradually through the first half of the 19th century, especially the 1820s and 1830s, the property requirement was abolished so that most white men could vote in most if not all states by the time of the Civil War.

Amendments to the Constitution have tended to extend protections in the area of suffrage in the direction of "everyone": 1870 ("race, color or previous condition of servitude"), 1920 (women), in the 1960s (poll tax and literacy requirements). Etc. But this expansion was far from uncontested or linear.

The Constitution is a contested document, and remains so. My post meant to put the document into perspective and to remind us not to overplay what it ensures ("made real"). The making real is a (continuing) process.

Democracy can be real only when everyone is a part of the debate ('isegoria'), and when he can speak about everything ('parrhesia'). Aren't these concepts made real in the English Bill of Rights of the 17th century and in the American constitution?

You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

Missing or challenging Third element of Democracy Being Real might be for the voter to be educated/informed? The unintended consequence of Internet Medica Communities and consolidation of Media outlets is people choosing what facts make up their consideration, ie: not educated or informed.

A real challenge.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Statistical Mechanic wrote:The question was whether the Constitution (and English bill of rights) didn't make "real" a democracy in which "everyone is a part of the debate ('isegoria'), and when he can speak about everything ('parrhesia')." The answer is no. The Constitution has a logic - but that logic was not played out in the Constitution, which notably distinguished between free and enslaved.

Thinking about elections and representation: Southern states wanted people held in slavery to be considered property - except for purposes of representation, and a compromise was struck on this. Nor did the Constitution define who could vote but left that up to states, which generally permitted during the early republic only free white male property owners to vote. IIRC a few states did allow freed blacks to vote and gradually through the first half of the 19th century the property requirement was abolished in most if not all states.

Amendments to the Constitution moved, on suffrage, protections in the direction of "everyone": 1870 ("race, color or previous condition of servitude"), 1920 (women), in the 1960s (poll tax and literacy requirements). Etc.

Democracy can be real only when everyone is a part of the debate ('isegoria'), and when he can speak about everything ('parrhesia'). Aren't these concepts made real in the English Bill of Rights of the 17th century and in the American constitution?

Understood the question, Stat, and to your last post, i added that Greek "isegoria" was also limited in Athen even at the times when democracy was at the highest level, to its citizens, and that citizenship, if it finally ceased to be limited to the wealthy, therefore at the end, open to the poor, it still excluded Slaves, Women and foreigners (a substantial part of the population)...I also pointed out, with sarcasm, that once really open to the poor, the system kind of went out of control - aka the Socrates trial - and turned into a system called demagogic perversion by philosophers like Platon...

If my memories are good (which is not obvious) Socrates was sentenced to death for something like "blasphemy" or a crime of that like...

Now, on a global stance, the Bill of Rights did not turned Britain into a "great democracy" but conceded to the citizens some of the fundamental freedoms, but that has nothing to do with the political regime which was still a monarchy with a powerful "House of Lords", a citizenship restricted to people with some wealth.

The US constitution is probably the most democratic text out there on its principles, then of course comes the issue on who are to be concerned by it.

The same goes with the french "declaration of Human rights" 1789, but if principles are essential, a democracy to succeed the best it can needs its rulers to profoundly adhere to those principles, which is what failed by 1792...

So, i will agree that - on paper and theoretically - the USA today are probably the most democratic State in the world...Still, in my taste, there is some missing elements... , but at least, you have the basis, all you need actually is a leader who would be sincerely close to the theories expressed.

Kleon_I XYZ Contagion wrote:Aren't these concepts made real . . . in the American constitution?

Except, notably, for women, native American Indians, and unfree blacks. But, on the other hand, the tendency or dynamic was indeed somewhat already present in that document.

(great, very instructive reply, thanks much - I read the piece 1-1/2 times and your reply 2x!)

Well, i do suspect that some people were also excluded from all those democratic activities in Antic Athens as well...Even this democracy was not set up in one day, it took many crisis and the necessary social evolution. I am speaking from memory and Kleon is more than welcomed to correct the little i know / remember.

Yes, of course. All the above were for the 'citizens'. There were slaves, and in some cases and cities and periods, there were a kind of a mid-situation, but this stratification has nothing to do with racism, like in the US case, if you were born a black, you would be subhuman forever.

It was a little different, and it had to do with a number of factors, not only the amount of the taxes one could pay but also fulfilling the three basic criteria, unity, independence and self-sufficiency of the homeland:

After the 5th BC century the social stratification in Athens was like that: citizens, metoikoi and slaves. Only citizens have political rights. Metoikoi were, let's say, a kind of immigrants or inhabitants that were foreigners who lived in Athens as craftsmen and traders and did not have the right to own land. These three categories were not social classes but legal categories. An Athenian who lost his political rights was made a metoikos. A metoikos who could not pay his debts became a slave. A liberated slave could became a metoikos. A metoikos who could make it well could become a citizen in some cases.

A similar strange situation was the women situation: Women, of course, did not have political rights. But the daughters of the citizens were inherited the Athenian citizenship of their parents and transmitted to their male children after a legal marriage with an Athenian citizen.

There was also the military case: A soldier or a navy-man could gain full political rights if he fought well in some wars and if he contributed in the victories against the Persians. That is, because heroic soldiers fulfilled the basic criterion of defending the independence of the homeland as well as a citizen. (The other two criteria were unity and self-sufficiency of the homeland, besides autonomy).

And during the centuries, the direction of the society was to be more and more democratic, with today's meaning

According to experts and scholars, the 10 stages of every genocide are

Statistical Mechanic wrote:The question was whether the Constitution (and English bill of rights) didn't make "real" a democracy in which "everyone is a part of the debate ('isegoria'), and when he can speak about everything ('parrhesia')." The answer is no. The Constitution has a logic - but that logic was not played out in the Constitution, which notably distinguished between free and enslaved.

Thinking about elections and representation: Southern states wanted people held in slavery to be considered property - except for purposes of representation, and a compromise was struck on this. Nor did the Constitution define who could vote but left that up to states, which generally permitted during the early republic only free white male property owners to vote. IIRC a few states did allow freed blacks to vote and gradually through the first half of the 19th century the property requirement was abolished in most if not all states.

Amendments to the Constitution moved, on suffrage, protections in the direction of "everyone": 1870 ("race, color or previous condition of servitude"), 1920 (women), in the 1960s (poll tax and literacy requirements). Etc.

Democracy can be real only when everyone is a part of the debate ('isegoria'), and when he can speak about everything ('parrhesia'). Aren't these concepts made real in the English Bill of Rights of the 17th century and in the American constitution?

Understood the question, Stat, and to your last post, i added that Greek "isegoria" was also limited in Athen even at the times when democracy was at the highest level, to its citizens, and that citizenship, if it finally ceased to be limited to the wealthy, therefore at the end, open to the poor, it still excluded Slaves, Women and foreigners (a substantial part of the population)...I also pointed out, with sarcasm, that once really open to the poor, the system kind of went out of control - aka the Socrates trial - and turned into a system called demagogic perversion by philosophers like Platon...

If my memories are good (which is not obvious) Socrates was sentenced to death for something like "blasphemy" or a crime of that like...

Now, on a global stance, the Bill of Rights did not turned Britain into a "great democracy" but conceded to the citizens some of the fundamental freedoms, but that has nothing to do with the political regime which was still a monarchy with a powerful "House of Lords", a citizenship restricted to people with some wealth.

The US constitution is probably the most democratic text out there on its principles, then of course comes the issue on who are to be concerned by it.

The same goes with the french "declaration of Human rights" 1789, but if principles are essential, a democracy to succeed the best it can needs its rulers to profoundly adhere to those principles, which is what failed by 1792...

So, i will agree that - on paper and theoretically - the USA today are probably the most democratic State in the world...Still, in my taste, there is some missing elements... , but at least, you have the basis, all you need actually is a leader who would be sincerely close to the theories expressed.

But, is a perfect democracy even achievable?

Of course I had in mind slaves in Ancient Greece and Indians, blacks, women and others excluded in the modern democracies. When I said 'Aren't these concepts made real in the English Bill of Rights of the 17th century and in the American constitution' referring to 'citizens', I meant the great progress of transferring the power of The One or the power of the Few to the Many, equally, no matter poor or rich, and no matter if your blood comes from a family that was always in power. Certainly it is an ongoing process that even today hasn't be completed and it will take a very long time, but the main point here is that the concepts of isegoria and parrhesia made possible the great change 'you don't have to be born with a high class blood to be in power and to rule all other people', under those old days conditions, of course. There are now other criteria to become a citizen, and your vote is equal to everyone's else inside the body of the citizens, of course. That's why I said «The concept that most included people, against all other regimes of the time, whose their concepts excluded people».I thought it was clear, but I had to clarify it further, my mistake.

We may all be saying the same thing: I do tend to react to the overselling of the US Constitution. If Jeff_36 sees US history as a heroic march with a shining beacon at its head, I see it as more of an ugly slog with empty promises both betrayed and weaponized. I'm old enough, for example, to remember segregation . . . and a lot else. And, as noted, I taught US history (many, many years ago LOL) on the college level for a few years. It all made me a glass-half-full kind of observer - and a bit cynical in my dotage.

OTOH when deniers have tried dismissing points I make as victor's history - LGR went so far as to blame me personally for Clinton's disastrous Libyan policy - they have fingered the wrong guy.

You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

Statistical Mechanic wrote:We may all be saying the same thing: I do tend to react to the overselling of the US Constitution. If Jeff_36 sees US history as a heroic march with a shining beacon at its head, I see it as more of an ugly slog with empty promises both betrayed and weaponized. I'm old enough, for example, to remember segregation . . . and a lot else. And, as noted, I taught US history (many, many years ago LOL) on the college level for a few years. It all made me a glass-half-full kind of observer - and a bit cynical in my dotage.

I’ve gotten that way myself.

I’ve read too much American history to look at this country as some sort of shining paragon of virtue. This country participated in the repression of Native Americans, imperial campaigns against the Philippines (and other places), the enslavement of Africans and repression of black US citizens and other minorities, etc. A significant percentage of this country thought it was a great idea to elect a giant, orange anus as the president of this country, a significant percentage of this country remains intolerant (yes, including those who call themselves “liberal”) and racist.

OTOH I also see the virtues. We are flawed but at least we haven’t had a Stalin or a Hitler (even if the anus wants to) and we’ve tried to get better. Thud is a huge step in the wrong direction but hopefully we will get this corrected, even if my children or theirs spend decades fixing crap that Thud breaks. If nothing this woke up the grassroots that got lazy and complacent while Obama was in office. BTW, I include myself in that category.

“Today I saw one of those places, saw it in all of its horror, all its filth, all its death.”Soldier entering the Ohrdruf Concentration Camp.

Because we have so much wealth and power, the impact of what we do, say, and promote has been outsized. I see, sadly, a lot of parochialism and arrogance in our culture, perhaps a legacy of having so much wealth and power. But the slightest pushback to American power, and we go all #MAGA on the world. Not that I am surprised by it, but I still manage to be disappointed . . .

You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

LOL, he could listen to the Carpenters on cassette while finishing his monumental work of debunking Lipstadt’s “Denying History.”

8 track, baby

Speaking of "monumental works", anybody know when or if Irving is going to publish his Himmler bio.... took a look at his website today and apart from the usual crap front page it's seems unattended to? Last time I heard from him was summer 2015.....

I think she forgot to report. It’s obvious she really likes German prison food, it was probably just an oversight on her part. After all, they did find her at home.

Ironically I’m being gripped at by a denier over Nazi grandma. I’m the wrong person to guilt trip over her. I think she’s a moron who likes the attention she gets.

German prisons and the German prison system is apparently one of the best in the world. It's literally paradise when compared to either the Nightmare of the US prison system or Prisons in 3rd World Countries. She should be thankful. In addition to liking the "attention", she probably also likes the place and the high quality treatment she's sure to get. It's like what they sometimes say on Police procedural shows; criminals try to get themselves arrested so they can have free food and a roof on their heads (prison)

Bernie Warner, the corrections secretary of Washington, noticed the faint smell of smoke—all the prisoners can smoke here, unlike their counterparts in the US. Inmates live in rooms and sleep in beds, not on concrete or steel slabs with thin padding. They have privacy—correctional officers knock before entering. Prisoners wear their own clothes, and can decorate their space as they wish. They cook their own meals, are paid more for their work, and have opportunities to visit family, learn skills, and gain education. (Inmates are required to save money to ensure that they are not penniless upon release.)

We walked through pristine white cells that looked more like dorm rooms at a liberal arts college than the steel and concrete boxes most US prisoners call home. The toilets and sinks were white and ceramic, nothing like the stainless steel bowls bolted to the wall in many US prisons (Heidering Prison opened in 2013, but such toilets have been installed in older prisons as well). Most prisoners have knives and forks in their cells. Though the prisoners cannot access the internet, they have telephones in their rooms, and they can call anyone—even the media.

NathanC wrote:German prisons and the German prison system is apparently one of the best in the world. It's literally paradise when compared to either the Nightmare of the US prison system or Prisons in 3rd World Countries. She should be thankful. In addition to liking the "attention", she probably also likes the place and the high quality treatment she's sure to get.

I remember an old quote by the Australian denier and head of the "Adelaide Institute", Dr. Gerald Frederick Toben (also titled “Australia’s most highly qualified school bus driver” ) where he said that going to jail was like going to college, in the sense that he can get some reading done.

Unfortunately, deniers dont read the books they should read, and instead dive into their pals' fiction novels.